I can't stand when "Separation of church and state" is thrown out there as the argument in cases like these. It is the STUDENTS doing this NOT THE STATE, not the School staff, hell it aint even the coach. The knee jerk b.s. reaction to try to stop these kids because A parent (from another school) had A complaint. This sh!t where "if it isn't my opinion you may not utter it" is exactly what needs to stop. Not some kids expressing themselves.I swear, if the sign read "VANILLA" you'd have a crowd of "Chocolate" lovers get their panties bunched up and demand the end of the pro vanilla movement forcing them to like vanilla.

Idiots.

0

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is!Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

This is garbage. Before every game in high school everyone took a knee in the end zone and we had a team prayer. There were kids who were christian, jewish, atheist among others. Nobody ever complained, some sat there in silence but still participated out of respect for the majority.

Yup, there seems to be a misconception and acceptance by the PC pushovers out there too that they are right. So even though the government is not mandating a religion, they go TOO FAR and overstep their bounds and decree that individuals who WISH to FREELY worship can not since it offends even one person. Such B.S. and makes some freedom of speech "protected" yet allows some other opinions to be squashed when they are not PC.

0

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is!Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

I am an atheist through and through. While I understand that some who take a hardline position on anything anti-religion and that might seem like atheists can be as rigid and hardline as the religious zealots they claim to not be, I do not believe that atheism is a religion like any other.

Now, on topic, separation of church and state was meant, in my opinion, to avoid any religious group from gaining a majority and turning people of other faiths into second class citizens. To that point, I think that in any gov't building, property or sanctioned event(of which I include any public employer's sanctioned events) there should not be any type of sign, whatever that COULD give the impression that the school believes one religion is more important, better, wtv than the others. A team prayer or anything done in the locker, stays in the locker room, don't care if they all get naked and dance together, they're a team and they can figure out whether something bothers a teammate or not. But my issue is with overt mentions of only one religion. It's clear that most of that school is probably made up of christians, but still, I believe that these types of things, maybe not if directly, indirectly affect the perception of that religion to the student body. When something is portrayed at school or a school event, it is seen as condoned by the group who's running the event, i.e. the school. This is where my issue is with it. I don't care what anyone does in private, but gtfo my face(and impressionable kids faces) with the religion and let them make their own decisions.

The whole debate over the Establishment Clause and what, if anything, the Constitution has to say about the "separation of church and state" is complicated by the fact that, as originally conceived, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. And at the time, it was inconceivable that the federal government would be involved in education, which is where a huge chunk of Establishment Clause litigation arises. So notwithstanding what Thomas Jefferson wrote in some private letters, all it really means is that the Federal government can't establish something called the "Church of the United States". If it truly meant a "wall of separation" or the absence of any kind of "endorsement" of religion, coinage would not say "in God we trust" and Congressional business would not be opened with a prayer.

History aside, most establishment clause cases that I'm aware of are pretty silly, maybe with the exception of litigation to prevent the teaching of creationism in biology class. A case where a school wanted to open up its graduation ceremonies with a prayer went all the way to the Supreme Court. My mom went to public school where they opened up homeroom with prayer, and she didn't turn out to be some religious zealot (you never were required to participate anyway).

I think the ACLU does good work. I think they'd have a better reputation though if they didn't go around the country looking for any municipal building that had a merry christmas sign, or gasp!, a nativity scene.

Although even the ACLU didn't go as far as these real whackjobs who tried to enjoin an Appollo astronaut (I forget which one) from reciting Genesis on the moon.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Are you kidding me right now. Thinly veiled brag about being an atheist? Because no one has ever endured a religious person bragging about how their lifestyle will lead them to heaven, HA! Good one. And no one really likes Tebow, he's a joke. I don't care if he's religious or not, just get it the fvck off my tv on Sunday, I don't go to church for a reason.

The whole debate over the Establishment Clause and what, if anything, the Constitution has to say about the "separation of church and state" is complicated by the fact that, as originally conceived, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. And at the time, it was inconceivable that the federal government would be involved in education, which is where a huge chunk of Establishment Clause litigation arises. So notwithstanding what Thomas Jefferson wrote in some private letters, all it really means is that the Federal government can't establish something called the "Church of the United States". If it truly meant a "wall of separation" or the absence of any kind of "endorsement" of religion, coinage would not say "in God we trust" and Congressional business would not be opened with a prayer.

History aside, most establishment clause cases that I'm aware of are pretty silly, maybe with the exception of litigation to prevent the teaching of creationism in biology class. A case where a school wanted to open up its graduation ceremonies with a prayer went all the way to the Supreme Court. My mom went to public school where they opened up homeroom with prayer, and she didn't turn out to be some religious zealot (you never were required to participate anyway).

I think the ACLU does good work. I think they'd have a better reputation though if they didn't go around the country looking for any municipal building that had a merry christmas sign, or gasp!, a nativity scene.

Although even the ACLU didn't go as far as these real whackjobs who tried to enjoin an Appollo astronaut (I forget which one) from reciting Genesis on the moon.

We didn't put it on our money until well after the country was founded mid 1800's around the Civil War. Wasn't in the pledge til '56. This country was not intended to endorse in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a single religion. If my local gov't said, hey, everyone come to park whatever and put up a scene relating to your particular religious holiday, that would be fine, but putting up a nativity scene alone, is not in my mind. You are giving the impression that one religion in particular is more important, better and more deserving than the others. And that violates the spirit that this country was founded on and you know it.

Are you kidding me right now. Thinly veiled brag about being an atheist? Because no one has ever endured a religious person bragging about how their lifestyle will lead them to heaven, HA! Good one. And no one really likes Tebow, he's a joke. I don't care if he's religious or not, just get it the fvck off my tv on Sunday, I don't go to church for a reason.

We didn't put it on our money until well after the country was founded mid 1800's around the Civil War. Wasn't in the pledge til '56. This country was not intended to endorse in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a single religion. If my local gov't said, hey, everyone come to park whatever and put up a scene relating to your particular religious holiday, that would be fine, but putting up a nativity scene alone, is not in my mind. You are giving the impression that one religion in particular is more important, better and more deserving than the others. And that violates the spirit that this country was founded on and you know it.

Again, the federal government at the very least would "endorse" the idea of a religious deity since the founding. For the longest time, many states and local governments did explicitly endorse certain religious denominations. It was only until the Supreme Court ruled that certain amendments in the Bill of Rights were incorporated into the fourteenth amendment that stopped state and local governments from doing so. (Notice how the Scopes monkey trial was not decided by the establishment clause). Yes, maybe the Supreme Court was right to do so. But it clearly puts the lie to the claim that government "endorsement" of religion is a relatively recent invention of southern bible thumpers, or that the nation was somehow founded on the idea of a wall of separation between church and state.

Re nativity scenes, you may not like them (I don't care for them either). But sometimes people ought to remember the saying "let's not make a federal case out of it."

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Again, the federal government at the very least would "endorse" the idea of a religious deity since the founding. For the longest time, many states and local governments did explicitly endorse certain religious denominations. It was only until the Supreme Court ruled that certain amendments in the Bill of Rights were incorporated into the fourteenth amendment that stopped state and local governments from doing so. (Notice how the Scopes monkey trial was not decided by the establishment clause). Yes, maybe the Supreme Court was right to do so. But it clearly puts the lie to the claim that government "endorsement" of religion is a relatively recent invention of southern bible thumpers, or that the nation was somehow founded on the idea of a wall of separation between church and state.

Re nativity scenes, you may not like them (I don't care for them either). But sometimes people ought to remember the saying "let's not make a federal case out of it."

I mean, if I saw one, I'm not gonna piss on their parade or anything, but I personally believe that it gives the perception of favoring the religion that's displayed. Be it Judaism, Christianity, wtv, I don't care because I think the idea that you pick one out of many means that one has importance and that thought can be perceived by others through the display.

Are you suggesting that Tebow be arrested for stealing salary and impersonating someone with talent? If so, I am right there with you. Personally, I think Tebow's on field demonstration just makes him look silly (along with all the others who feel the need to thank a god for helping them score a touchdown) on top of what will probably be a short NFL career.

0

Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchensph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn